Black Holes.

I watched a YouTube video today, about weird people called 'scientists', who studied back holes. They all seemed quite mad, and in that unnerving way of left-wingers, appeared to be wearing fixed smiles, as if to make the viewer see them as benign and friendly. But looked at closely, the smiles were inappropriate to the content, and seemed to more resemble quivering grimaces of pain, or fear, than steady, stable smiles.

Fear was the big thing I noticed, because, again and again, their formulae delivered a result of infinity, and it was this that so scared them. Nothing they studied ended up behaving as they thought it should, and the goddamned universe seemed more and more like it might be dangerous. That is to say: beyond their control.

Black holes, they concluded, in that theoretical way that they have of concluding things, seemed to be impossibly massive, yet impossibly small. And that terrified them. What they actually seemed to be after was a formula that comforted them. A theory they could feel easy with. And that seemed to be very elusive.

They seemed incapable of realizing, let alone accepting, that a black hole is as essential to the galaxy that contains it, as that galaxy is to the black hole at its heart. There is no one without the other. And there is only one thing as powerful, as invisible, and as vanishingly small as a black hole.

Neutron stars are just as fascinating. They're kind of an intermediate between the main sequence star and the black hole although they aren't actual stars themselves insofar as their origin. Instead of coalescing from nebulae gases like other stars, they're an ultra dense compressed ball of matter formed inside a supernova detonation and about the width of a small city.

It might follow that the actual matter within a black hole is correspondingly more compressed, with even more exotic properties and maybe as wide as a small house. The core width may contract and expand to extremes a million times a second. The alien concepts at work here could reasonably invoke some emotions that seem out of place.

Astrophysicists don't "fear" black holes; I thank they are rather excited about them. Singularities don't appear to exist anywhere (else) in the universe, so to have an example of a "living, breathing" singularity that can be indirectly observed is really fascinating. Science's only use is explaining cause and effect relationships, so of course that's what the physicists are going to try to do. It is their job, after all.

Physicists deal with singularities on a smaller scale when working with mathematics, but when you are working with shapes too small to be observed, you are "allowed" to smooth things out with handy functions of numerical interaction, so they don't have to deal with points that appear at first glance to render infinities. So the idea of having to deal with infinities on a real-life up-close scale like a black hole's singularity is pretty exciting.

It is a point. If you think of a singularity like a sphere, maybe a small moon or a planet, then you could not stand on one side of it.. Your feet would be touching its entire surface.

You could also think of a singularity like a pixel on your computer screen. An object moving across the display can't get from one side of the pixel to the other. It is either there or not there.

As you shrink a sphere, its curvature increases. Increase the curvature to infinity, and you have a singularity.

Since mathematics doesn't allow for infinities, singularities in real life are special, because they are indescribable by math, which means a hey day for those who use math to understand universal mechanics.

I enjoyed your description of a singularity, Dead Last. Dat wuz good. I would tend to describe it as what lies between the ears of most people, where the brain should be. Paradoxically, that might also be thought of as a quantum computer...

It is a point. If you think of a singularity like a sphere, maybe a small moon or a planet, then you could not stand on one side of it.. Your feet would be touching its entire surface.

You could also think of a singularity like a pixel on your computer screen. An object moving across the display can't get from one side of the pixel to the other. It is either there or not there.

As you shrink a sphere, its curvature increases. Increase the curvature to infinity, and you have a singularity.

Since mathematics doesn't allow for infinities, singularities in real life are special, because they are indescribable by math, which means a hey day for those who use math to understand universal mechanics.

Thanks. Still, it's very abstract. I'm left with the feeling I still don't know what it is. It's a point? Where would this point be, what would it do? How are they related to black holes? Would the singularity be like total dissolution or absorption?

I have the feeling that all the concepts that are thrown around for people who are not scientists are severely condensed for the general public. In reality, they are a bunch of calculations. Am I right?

It is a point. If you think of a singularity like a sphere, maybe a small moon or a planet, then you could not stand on one side of it.. Your feet would be touching its entire surface.

You could also think of a singularity like a pixel on your computer screen. An object moving across the display can't get from one side of the pixel to the other. It is either there or not there.

As you shrink a sphere, its curvature increases. Increase the curvature to infinity, and you have a singularity.

Since mathematics doesn't allow for infinities, singularities in real life are special, because they are indescribable by math, which means a hey day for those who use math to understand universal mechanics.

Thanks. Still, it's very abstract. I'm left with the feeling I still don't know what it is. It's a point? Where would this point be, what would it do? How are they related to black holes? Would the singularity be like total dissolution or absorption?

I have the feeling that all the concepts that are thrown around for people who are not scientists are severely condensed for the general public. In reality, they are a bunch of calculations. Am I right?

I'm not a scientist, so I won't speak for them.

I am pretty sure you can grasp a singularity intuitively without any math though.

I say a singularity is a point because it does not have distance between one side and the next. If you draw a circle on paper, you can point to any spot inside it, and still be "inside" the circle. If you draw smaller and smaller circles, you will eventually have on so small that your finger cannot fit inside of it; your finger covers the entire thing up. Not having any space inside for another object to move around in; that is a singularity.

That is significant when you consider the smallest things in the universe that we measure; about 10 raised to -33 centimeters. That's really, really small. The reason we use this point for measurement is because if you get any smaller, you lose the location of whatever you are trying to measure; things just sort of "disappear" sometimes, when they are that small. But those things are particles and subparticles, and are typically of very low mass. Hell, photons are treated as practically mass-less.

Singularities that appear in nature like in black holes, then, are special, because they are still really, really small, but they are not nearly mass-less. In fact they are as massive as stars. Stars are only stable so long as the hydrogen explosions inside them can counteract the intense gravity that is squeezing it into a spherical shape. Due to entropy, the hydrogen will eventually run out of energy and the star's own gravity will overcome the outward-pushing force of hydrogen explosions. At this point, the star shrinks indefinitely. Evidently, we get a black hole after that, because with no outward-pushing energy to save it, the star shrinks to a singularity, with gravity so strong that it even bends the orbit of photons! That's really saying something considering that photons move faster than anything else in the universe and are nearly mass-less! But that also means that singularities are invisible. Since photons carry information as light, we cannot see what is going on in the vicinity of a singularity; thus the name, "black hole".

I have the feeling that all the concepts that are thrown around for people who are not scientists are severely condensed for the general public.

Most valuable part of this thread.

People around these parts make a noisy deal about not believing in things just because "an authority" told them, yet it all falls to pieces in this thread. Everyone trusts the word of scientists that they just finished mocking a few lines earlier, and if not, then appoint themselves amateur scientists who can now explain various space-time phenomena.

Quote

a black hole is as essential to the galaxy that contains it, as that galaxy is to the black hole at its heart. There is no one without the other.

How do you know this? What study have you done of the structure of space-time?

Quote

And there is only one thing as powerful, as invisible, and as vanishingly small as a black hole.

Consciousness.

A soul.

I don't understand this. Does consciousness = a soul? What does consciousness (which [so far] has been observable only in organic material), have in common with inorganic spacetime phenomena?

You don't see much, although you decree what is valuable and what isn't. You may note, if you re-read, that I do not claim to know much about any of it. I observe what is there. I take what experts have to say and compare it to what is apparent. If black holes lie at the heart of each and every galaxy, as experts claim, then clearly, they have some reason to be there. At no point do I say that any of this needs to be known, or that it is of any use, in the knowing. It is, as usual, what it is.

The only thing I do know, first hand, about, is the absolute nature of what lies out there. I have been there, in it, and of it. Black holes are something I recognize, although I do not think of them as black holes. Don't bother demanding proof, because there can be none. Don't expect me to show the slightest interest in having you believe a word I say, because I have no interest. Be awed, or ignore it.

If you are awed, then that awe may move you to become a spaceman, yourself, inasfar as you are able to become one. If you are not awed, then so what? Do you consider any harm has been done? Is this not an interesting thread?

Scientists can only know so much, and only in certain limited ways. Mystics may know things scientists never can, and in ways that are the exclusive domain of mystics. Amusingly, scientists need followers far more than mystics do. Each have their uses, I suppose.

Everyone trusts the word of scientists that they just finished mocking a few lines earlier, and if not, then appoint themselves amateur scientists who can now explain various space-time phenomena.

I am indeed a layperson, doing a fairly good job of explaining to another layperson, considering that none of us are astrophycisists (that I know of... and if you are, get your ass in here, and help me out).

Level any and all specific criticisms toward my explanation, please. I can withstand criticism. I can even withstand being wrong. But you are not helping anyone to suggest that we're all talking nonsense because we don't have access to astrophysics equipment and knowledge.

Singularities are so basic in nature that you can understand them just by wanting to. Same with vibration, refraction, and probably all the other important things that define our universe. If you want to delve into the numbers, be my guest. I don't understand them, but I don't need to. I understand singularities as far as I am able and willing and any further knowledge would not really benefit me. Like I mentioned earlier, though, providing more or corrective information would be appreciated.

Don't bother demanding proof, because there can be none.Don't expect me to show the slightest interest in having you believe a word I say, because I have no interest.Be awed, or ignore it.

Alright then. I was attempting to come at it with a "science mind". You are using a "mystic mind".

These historically have problems communicating.

Quote

Do you consider any harm has been done? Is this not an interesting thread?

It may be interesting, but it's probably not scientifically accurate. Which was my point. If you don't care about whether it is or not, then my posts are probably meaningless to you.

Quote

But you are not helping anyone to suggest that we're all talking nonsense because we don't have access to astrophysics equipment and knowledge.

I would assert that this area (at present) is one in which human understanding is very limited - this is clearly admitted by anyone involved in studying the area under question. To then attempt to articulate complex mathematical ideas without having directly studied what is being discussed, and presenting what is being articulated as necessarily true even though the source itself does not claim anything as a certainty, is highly unlikely to be accurate. To which I would then ask, why bother articulating it? Or, if the urge is so great, at least list some goddamn sources...

There is no guaranteed possibility of communication. It is most likely to happen when both - or all - parties are interested in communication, which is almost never.

My point, if there was one, in this thread, was to draw attention to the fear and terror I detected in scientists when faced with something like a black hole, and with the idea of infinity. It isn't something that the mystic fears at all, in fact it stimulates, rather than scares. Such things are the hard currency of mysticism. They have value above and beyond the kind that science assigns to them.